Problems With The Patriot Act

Articles

Problems With The Patriot Act

By Jack Lepiarz
Dec. 27, 2005

Democrats have called it an intrusion on American rights. Republicans have said that it is protecting American liberty. Two very different views on the USA Patriot Act, which, among other things, gives the president the power to hold what he calls "enemy combatants" without bail and wiretap international phone calls without a warrant. The question that arises is whether or not George W. Bush is acting within his powers as president, or whether he is acting more like a dictator trying to do away with constitutional rights.

On one hand, that the Patriot Act can be used to fight terrorism and prevent further attacks is an undeniable fact. It is perfectly normal to wonder what someone in Houston has to say to somebody in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nobody wants another terrorist attack in the U.S. (because it gives the Republicans another chance to wave the bloody shirt), but no one wants their rights infringed upon. It's a difficult question. Do we sacrifice basic rights outlined in the Constitution for an allegedly safer country? Or do we demand that our rights stay the same and possibly put ourselves at greater risk?

The Patriot Act grants Bush the power to tap phones and check e-mails going in and out of the country without a warrant. By any account, this is a clear intrusion upon the fourth amendment, which says that "The right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation."

That seems pretty clear. Wiretapping someone's phone or checking their e-mails without a warrant is most certainly an unreasonable search. If the United States government can't get a warrant to investigate someone, then they shouldn't be investigating them in the first place. That's the law. Those looking for the so-called "right to privacy" can find it right in the fourth amendment.

As for holding "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo Bay (I am referring to alleged terrorists arrested in the United States), the fifth amendment makes it very clear that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury ... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

By all accounts, detaining someone without bail or trial is a clear violation of the Constitution. If the government is going to accuse someone of being a terrorist, they must have evidence to support it, and they must back it up with the due process of law. If we fail to do that, then we have no right to say that we are defending freedom.

There was a time for the Patriot Act, and that was during the months immediately following 9/11. Now, more than four years later, it is time that we stop worrying night and day about terrorists. The threat of terrrorism is over-blown. Terrorism is not going to bring the downfall of the United States. The United States' actions against it will.

------------

About the author: Jack Lepiarz is a senior at Madison High School. Born in Waco, Texas, he lived with the Big Apple Circus for much of his early childhood, eventually moving to Madison, New Jersey, where he now resides. Although he is often described as stubborn and egotistical, he tries to keep an open-mind towards new ideas and treat people the way he would like to be treated.

Email: Jackwuzhere42@aol.com

Tell a friend about this site!

------------

All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED!